What combination would you recommend for Macro and Portraiture

Hi all!

 

As I'm considering buying new lens(es), I have a question for the

pros and more experienced photographers out there.

 

I enjoy taking portraits, and shooting people's faces. But on the

other hand I would also like to do some macro work, I find it

fascinating. So I've decided to buy a portrait lens and a macro lens.

 

My candidates are the "Nikon 85mm f/1.8D AF" and the "Nikon 60mm

f/2.8D AF Micro".

 

Now, (and here is where I need you expertise), if I buy the "Nikon

105mm f/2.8D AF Micro AF" wouldn't I be getting a two-purpose lens,

in fact, for the two styles I'm after?

 

The money shouldn't be a problem. The 85mm + 60mm micro is only about

$100 more than the 105mm micro at Adorama (buying gray-market).

 

I hope you guys can guide me to the best combination.

 

Many thanks in advance.

Well, I use MF (in both senses) gear and am a tightwad to boot so I suppose I'm not really qualified to answer y'r question.

 

On the other hand, I do have and use all three MF MicroNikkors and used to have a couple of 105/2.5s. If it were my money, I'd get the 105/2.8 macro lens and not look back. 105 is a very good fl for portraiture, and 60 (shorter when focused close) is a bit short for many close up situations.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

Nikon 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro AF. Excellent portrait lens and macro lens. 60mm doesn't have adequate working distance for some macro applications.

105mm AFD f/2.8 micro is a good price compromise! Reasonable portrait lens, some prefer 85mm and there are times when I use the 80mm end of an 80-200mm zoom for portraits.

 

No experience with the 60mm micro, but my ancient 55mm macro doesn't have enough working distance at 1:1 (it is ok at 1:2). My 105mm AFD micro at 1:1 is about 80mm and it has too short a working distance for some subjects.

 

If money were no concern, the 200mm micro solves the working distance issue and the 85mm DC is a wonderful portrait lens.

The Nikon 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro AF has a superb reputation for macro work and an excellent, if not superb, reputation for head shots. It is really about a 90mm lens when it is used at macro settings.

 

If you prefer a head and shoulders perspective, the Tamrom 90mm SP f2.5 has an excellent reputation for both macro and portrait work. The Tamron 90mm is the only non-Nikon lens I own, but it has earned my full respect. However, autofocus opeartion may be much slower or noisier with the Tamron 90 than with the Nikon 105.

 

The Nikon AF 85mm f1.8 lens is widely rated as excellent, but it is slightly weak near its minimum working distance. Not so the Nikon 105 or the Tamron 90, and this advantage really comes into play when you want to get closer than three feet to babies. The minimum focusing distance of most 80-200 zoom lenses is also too long for headshots of babies and small children when they are used in the 80-105mm range.

 

I agree with several prior comments that 55mm and 60mm macro lenses are to be avoided if possible because of their close working distances. I also prefer the perspective of a 90mm or 105mm macro compared to the perspective of a 200mm macro, although 200mm is so convenient in many situations.

 

So my two cent recommendations are for either a Nikon 105 macro or else a Tamron 90 macro. Or even a new AF Nikon 105 AND a good used MF Tamron 90mm.

Just a thought: the 105 Micro is a slow in AF- it also extends much further, and it's much more precise to operate. the 85 is much much faster AF-wise. I'd say- if you want to go macro, get the 105 Micro, if you want to do portraits, get the 105/2.5; If you want it a little cheaper, and faster, get the 85. If you're not printing beyond 8x10, you wont see the difference between the three sharpness wise (perspective would be different though).

I own the couple 85 f1.8 + Micro 60, so I'll tell you about it. Optically, both are excellent lenses.

I have mixed feelings about the Micro 60, I find it too specialized: For macro work it can be beaten, it is excellent even on tubes or converters. The bad news are: it is weaker at long distances, so it isn't a good landscape unless you stop down to f11, and use of speedligths is a little anyoning as you are very close to the subject.

The 85 f1.8 is a very versatile lens if you like its focal length. It has great performance at its minimum focusing distance, so it is surprisingly good on tubes. I use it often for field macro work (around 1:2 on a 25mm tube). Use of its shadow is mandatory! I guess the 105 would be more useful for you if you plan to carry just one lens. However, 60+85 would satisfy some special needs: available ligth fotography is easier with the 85 and the Micro 60 is very very good to go beyond 1:1. Consider also your preferences about filter size (Micro 105 is 62, 85 and Micro 60 are 62) and focusing, since the macro lenses are hard to manually focus near infinity.

Ivan,

 

I didn't rate the AF 85mm f1.8 higher for three reasons. First, the close focus performance *at wide apertures* is a little weak. Second, it does perform well with 5T and 6T diopeters, so I imagine that it performs splendily on tubes. But the minimum aperture is f16, and that limits depth of field choices for macro. Third, tubes are less convenient than a real macro lens.

 

However, in terms of "bang for the buck", an AF 85mm f1.8 and a set of tubes would be quite difficult to beat for your applications.

Charles could you be experiencing sample variation? Many users and

testers have reported excellent close up wide aperture results from

the 85mm 1.8 AFD, and this is my experience too............

David,

 

Yes, thanks.

 

Of course the lens I used could have been worse than average, and because I sold it several years ago, I should add that I'm dealing from pretty old impressions.

 

Charlie

Of course it's even better at f4!

My experience of the 85/1.8 AFD on tubes was so mixed that I stopped using it for close-ups. I had odd color-fringing problems, and it only stops down to f/16. Within its normal focusing range it was one of the sharpest lenses I used, but I wouldn't consider it an all-purpose lens by any means.

The inexpensive way is to get a Nikkor 105mm f2.5 AIS lens and a

doubler, TC-200, or TC-201. I have these. However, this combination

will not let you go down to life-size (1:1) for micro work. Only goes

down to about 1:3.

 

For head shots only, I recommend the Nikkor 135mm f2.8 AIS, because

the longer working distance than 85mm or 105mm lets people relax

more.

 

For 1/3, 2/3 or full body shots the Nikkor 85mm f1.4 D AF is great!

And you can shoot from higher up looking down with this lens better

than a 105mm or 135mm (without using a ladder). I have this 85mm.

 

I've read that the ultimate micro lens is the Nikkor 200mm f4.0 AF.

That's what Bjorn Rorslet and Rod Plank use.

 

The problem I had with the Nikkor 105mm f2.8 micro lens is that

when I did manual focus for head shots, one slight amount of turn

makes the focus point change quite a lot. I found it to be too

sensitive for manually focus. I do not use auto-focus for head

shots because I don't want to be limited in my composition (I may

not want the eye located at a focus point). I got rid of this

lens for this reason.

I don't recommend the Nikkor 85mm f1.8 AF lens, the 85mm f1.4 AF has

much better mechanics. My f1.8 lens developed a loose focus mechanism

and rattled a lot after about 2 years. The Nikkor 105mm f2.5 AIS is

far superiour to this 85 f1.8 junk.